Legal Research
Cases
R v Warwick (No 94)

R v Warwick (No 94)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1168 3 September 2020

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.94) [2020] NSWSC 1168
Hearing dates: 20 August 2020
Date of orders: 03 September 2020
Decision date: 03 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Refer [106]-[107]

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Multiple offences – Offender convicted of 20 Counts – 3 Counts of murder – attack on public institution - Family Court bomber – Whether a life sentence is appropriate in the circumstances – no submissions concerning subjective circumstances – objective seriousness of offences targeting public officials – objective seriousness of offence targeting place of worship – flagitious crimes - life sentences imposed – maximum penalty appropriate

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Tarrant [2010] NZHC 2192
R v Warwick (No.93) [2020] NSWSC 926
Veen v The Queen (No.2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Leonard John Warwick (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
A R Conolly / E Ramsay (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

sentencing remarks

Between the years of 1980 to 1985, the Offender waged a campaign of extreme violence against the Family Court of Australia, its judges, and a practitioner. His final act of extreme violence was perpetrated on members of the Lurnea Congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, some of whom had helped his former wife and their daughter escape Sydney. It took over three decades for the Offender to be arrested, charged, tried and convicted for his offending.
On 23 July 2020, after presiding over a Judge alone trial of the Indictment presented against the Offender, I convicted the Offender of 20 counts for the reasons which I then published. [1] Specifically, I convicted the Offender of the following:
1. R v Warwick (No.93) [2020] NSWSC 926 (“the principal judgment”)

three counts of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Crimes Act”);

two counts of exploding an explosive device which destroys or damages a building with intent to murder a named individual contrary to s 28 of the Crimes Act;

one count of placing an explosive substance into a vehicle with intent to commit murder contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act;

one count of maliciously placing an explosive substance near a building with intent to damage that building contrary to s 204 of the Crimes Act; and

thirteen counts of maliciously, by an explosion, causing grievous bodily harm to named individuals contrary to s 46…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Warwick (No 94)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.94) [2020] NSWSC 1168
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1168
Decision Date: 03 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick involved the sentencing of an individual convicted on 20 counts, including three counts of murder. The individual had committed an attack on a public institution, specifically targeting the Family Court, and had also engaged in an attack on a place of worship. The objective of the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering the gravity of the crimes committed. The court was required to decide whether a life sentence was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court's task was to assess the objective seriousness of the crimes, which targeted public officials and a place of worship, and whether they could be classified as flagitious, warranting the maximum penalty.

The court examined the nature and impact of the offences, considering their objective seriousness. The court noted that the crimes were targeted at individuals performing public functions and at a place of worship, which underscored their severity. The court acknowledged that no submissions were made concerning the offender's subjective circumstances, focusing instead on the objective gravity of the crimes. The court held that the offences were of such a serious nature that they warranted a life sentence. The court concluded that the maximum penalty was appropriate, given the objective seriousness of the crimes committed by the offender.

The court imposed life sentences for each of the three counts of murder and concurrent sentences for the other offences. The court found that the objective circumstances of the crimes justified the imposition of the maximum penalty. The court's decision was based on the objective gravity of the offences, which targeted public officials and a place of worship, and the absence of any submissions concerning the offender's subjective circumstances. The court's reasoning was focused on the nature and impact of the crimes, which warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty available under the law.

Orders